logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 서울남부지방법원 2020.01.16 2019고단5143
특정범죄가중처벌등에관한법률위반(위험운전치상)등
Text

A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for not less than one year and six months.

However, the execution of the above punishment shall be suspended for two years from the date this judgment becomes final and conclusive.

Reasons

Punishment of the crime

1. On July 31, 2015, the Defendant issued a summary order of a fine of KRW 1.5 million for a violation of the Road Traffic Act at the Busan District Court's branch court's Busan District Court's branch court's order on July 31, 2015.

Nevertheless, the Defendant, while under the influence of around 12:40 on September 24, 2019, driven a Dco-type sports car from the subway line 7, the subway line 1154 located in the original road of Guro-gu Seoul, Seoul, to the front road located in the same Gu B from around 3km to the road located in the same Gu B.

Accordingly, the Defendant violated the prohibition of driving under the influence of alcohol twice.

2. Violation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes (Bodily Injury resulting from DD Driving) was a person engaging in driving a sports car even in DCo, and the Defendant was under the influence of drinking, such as breathing a horse under the influence of alcohol on September 24, 2019, when it is difficult to drive normally due to the influence of drinking, such as fluoring off a horse, driving the said vehicle under the influence of alcohol, driving the said vehicle on the two-lane road in Seoul Guro-gu, and driving the vehicle from Ehigh School (Seoul) to C, depending on one-lane of the two-lane road in Seoul Guro-gu.

In this case, there was a duty of care to prevent accidents in advance by properly operating the brakes while keeping a person engaged in driving a motor vehicle into the front door and the left door.

Nevertheless, the Defendant neglected the above duty of care and failed to properly operate the brake system, and was negligent in the course of duty, and the injured party F (the age of 60) who was standing in the signal atmosphere at the front section of the day was driven by the Defendant’s vehicle, followed the Glearning car driving by the signal atmosphere, and the part on the part on the front part of the passenger car of the Defendant.

Ultimately, the Defendant driven the said car in a state where it is difficult to drive the car normally due to the influence of drinking, and suffered injury, such as salt, tension, etc., of the trend that requires approximately two weeks medical treatment to the victim due to the said accident.

Summary of Evidence

1.

arrow